[E-trademarks] VETEMENTS case going up to SCOTUS

Wed Sep 10 20:58:06 UTC 2025

One of/the usual justification for translating is to protect non-English speakers in the US.  Assuming that they will translate one into the other any time they see it.  I am actually working on an article now on that false premise . . . but now that there is a S. Ct. case . . . it will be interesting.

Best,
J

Jasmine Abdel-khalik
Professor, UMKC School of Law

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Sam Castree via E-trademarks
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 3:06 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Sam Castree <sam at castreelaw.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] VETEMENTS case going up to SCOTUS

WARNING: This message has originated from an External Source. This may be a phishing expedition that can result in unauthorized access to our IT System. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
I studied French for years in high school and college, so while I'm not fluent by any means, but I can get by.  And I can't ever remember encountering the word "veuve."  I could tell that it was a French word, but I didn't know what it meant.  For whatever that's worth.

Cheers,

Sam Castree, III

Sam Castree Law, LLC
3421 W. Elm St.
McHenry, IL 60050
(815) 344-6300

On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 1:41 PM Welch, John L. via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:
The CAFC said this:

“[T]he word in question [VETEMENTS] is a simple and common word—the word for clothing. On the other hand, “widow” requires a more advanced vocabulary. This, therefore, distinguishes this case from the aspect of Palm Bay that was premised on “an appreciable number of purchasers [being] unlikely to be aware that VEUVE means ‘widow’” in French, and therefore “unlikely to translate the marks into English.” Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377 (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted).”

Do we have any French speakers out there? Is “veuve” an obscure word?

PS: Palm Bay was a likelihood of confusion case [not a genericness (or descriptiveness) case] in which the mark VEUVE ROYALE was found to be confusingly similar to VEUVE CLIQUOT for wine, but THE WIDOW was not confusingly similar, since consumers would not translate VEUVE as WIDOW..

JLW

[cid:image001.png at 01DC226B.B104A930]
John L. Welch
Senior Counsel
Admitted to Practice: Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC
jwelch at WolfGreenfield.com<mailto:jwelch at WolfGreenfield.com>
Tel. 617.646.8285
[cid:image002.jpg at 01DC226B.B104A930]<http://thettablog.blogspot.com/>
Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
BOSTON | NEW YORK | WASHINGTON DC

wolfgreenfield.com<https://www.wolfgreenfield.com/>  [cid:image003.png at 01DC226B.B104A930] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/wolf-greenfield/>  [cid:image004.png at 01DC226B.B104A930] <https://twitter.com/wolfgreenfield>
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Jessica R. Friedman via E-trademarks
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 11:18 AM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Jessica R. Friedman <jrfriedman at litproplaw.com<mailto:jrfriedman at litproplaw.com>>
Subject: [E-trademarks] VETEMENTS case going up to SCOTUS

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/04/world/europe/vetements-trademark-lawsuit.html raises a few questions for me:

  1.  The NY Times reporter analogizes the registration of VEUVE CLIQUOT, which means “widow cliquot” and refers to the company matriarch, for champagne, to the registration of VETEMENTS, which in French means clothing, for clothing. Is that an analogy the applicant has actually made, or is this just the usual ignorance of NY Times articles when it comes to IP?

  1.  The PTO refused registration on the ground that the mark is merely descriptive and that it appears to be generic. How can it be both?

  1.  The applicant’s response to the OA included the argument that “vetements” referred only to clothing as a category, while they are applying to register specific items of clothing: “Although the word “clothing” may have a relationship to an overall category of products, it is not the descriptive (nor generic) term for any specific item. A purchaser would not say they want to “buy a clothing.” Further, when the mark VETEMENTS is encountered an observer would first have to undertake translation of the word, and then draw a relationship to a specific item such as a sweatshirt”. I understand that we have to try any and every credible argument, but that one doesn’t strike me as falling into that category.

Jessica R. Friedman
Attorney at Law
300 East 59 Street, Ste. 2406
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-220-0900
Cell: 917-647-1884
E-mail: jrfriedman at litproplaw.com<mailto:jrfriedman at litproplaw.com>
URL: www.literarypropertylaw.com<http://www.literarypropertylaw.com/>

[1479430908386_PastedImage]

--
E-trademarks mailing list
E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250910/01be7222/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1575 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250910/01be7222/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23449 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250910/01be7222/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 590 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250910/01be7222/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 735 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250910/01be7222/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8892 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250910/01be7222/attachment-0003.png>